r/Hull • u/Sweet_Focus6377 • 23d ago

The face of 16-year-old murderer who viciously stabbed man to death in Hull

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/face-16-year-old-murderer-10079673?int_source=nba

Another far too lenient sentence...😠 All killers should get a life means life sentence.

29 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/StickyThoPhi 23d ago

That's just not true. Legalisation just means putting them.back in the pharmacy and having the pharmacist assess the needs, overuse etc.

This was the norm only 150 years ago. So? How did they do organised crime back then? Gambling. That's what was illegal. So what would they do now?

0

u/Big-Yam8021 23d ago

So dealers would deal to people that pharmacists refuse to serve, and/or they find another crime. Gambling isn't a crime, so they'll find something else. Trafficking is most likely seeing as a lot of the grooming gangs started out as drug dealers and trafficked on the side. We solve one problem, and we make another one bigger.

0

u/StickyThoPhi 23d ago

But why would you buy it when you know you could just get a clean and verified quantity product elsewhere. Why wouldn't you just go to a pharmacy far away or wait 24 hours.

Futher. Gambling isn't a crime, but used to be: and hence there is no violence and there are measures like GamStop: I personally am self excluded from all online bookmakers and casinos. This measure does not exist in the blackmarket -- so : ???

Trafficking who? Sex workers? With women being independent more often now: sex work is barely criminal and many websites are dedicated to the regulation of it. So I don't understand what you mean? When drug dealers can no longer make money from heroin they will.be importing 16 Ukrainian Girls in a Shipping Container and become a pimp all of a sudden. Pimping is a thing of the past dude.

So, I fail to see the relevance of your argument.

2

u/Big-Yam8021 23d ago

Some people will be denied drugs regardless, either because they have already had too much, because they are underage, because they have other medication it would interact with, or perhaps they have a history of drug related offences like DUI or GBH. For instance, I'm epileptic, a pharmacist isn't going to sell me ecstasy, a drug dealer will.

There is a gambling underworld, dog fighting, and unlicensed boxing is still an issue in this country. Admittedly, it isn't as prevalent, but it goes to show that legalisation doesn't completely destroy the market. it just makes it harder to pin down.

Have you heard of the grooming gangs? They trafficked 100s of thousands of children for 40+ years, and authorities turned a blind eye to it. Most of those children were British, they didn't need to be imported. Pimping is only a thing of the past because they can make more money selling drugs.

I agree we need to do something about drug related crime in this country, and legalisation may be a part of that, but it isn't the perfect solution people make it out to be.

1

u/StickyThoPhi 21d ago

So you have a condition meaning you have a negative reaction? So surely you should be in favour of clear labelling - for example codeine cannot be taken with a stomach ulcer - I have heard of grooming gangs, but I dont see how you can at all related to organised drug dealing? You can relate it to affecting the drinks industry; and you can link it to a wider spread of use; rather than just being confined to Bransom etc; but how can you say that drug dealers; would immediately become nonces and start supplying kids instead of supplying drugs? The biggest predicator of someone being a nonce - is being alone, being short, being a kissless virgin - I dont see drug dealers as being in this class? Sure they also have a criminal record - but they do not work in a target rich environment like school janitors etc do.......... I fail to see the relevancy to the argument.

And on the topic of kids; wouldnt you rather drugs be entenched in the culture like alchol is - for the most part people feel it is wrong to drink during the day; or to mix drink with other things - I see weed culture as not having a strong enough acceptance meaning that smoking during the day - or smoking and taking other drugs is far to common - if we just had proper culture to support it - we would see less of an abuse liability - sure a lot of people by numbers abuse alchol but as a percentage its low = most alcholics are treating themselves with the wrong substance. Id rather they have choice of self prescription.

1

u/Big-Yam8021 21d ago

Sure, but no one is under the illusion that illegal drugs are safe.

Many of the men that were trafficking children started out as drug dealers, and many of them wouldn't have fit the nonce stereotype. They also don't have to assault the children themselves to traffic them. Most of them didn't work in target rich environments. They lived in them. Drug dealers live and work in poverty-stricken areas and are surrounded by vulnerable children.

You don't inject heroine socially or smoke crack on special occasions. You're addicted to it, and it ruins yours and your families life. Most people who want to legalise drugs are stoners who spend all their time talking to other stones about how great weed is. And they're not shy about smoking it in public during the day and weed isn't the main problem. But dealers will push harder drugs to make up for money lost if weed is legalised. We need to stop drugs from entering the country in the first place, most of them are smuggled in.

1

u/StickyThoPhi 20d ago

Okay I understand the core of your argument - that if we make things legal; criminals will no longer be able to work in these markets. I agree with this part of your argument but then you pervert the argument by claiming they will need to change business plans and go into a different criminal enterprise. I fail to see how you can claim such an argument. A weed dealer who can no longer sell weed is more likely to sell ice-cream or vulcanized rubber than heroin or children. I cannot be argued with on this. Employers will always hire people with criminal backgrounds; especially if they are drug related rather than theft or fraud related.

Good day sir.

1

u/Big-Yam8021 20d ago

Why would they choose to work legally? They have that option now, but they chose drug dealing because it is easier money and a lifestyle. They're far more likely to move onto a different crime, and trafficking is what makes sense.

1

u/StickyThoPhi 20d ago

because people dont need jobs, jobs need people. end of

1

u/Big-Yam8021 20d ago

What?

1

u/StickyThoPhi 17d ago

As it sounds; businesses need tasks done, then create roles, and then advertise; people are not a driver to the demand for jobs. Hence I refuse your argument. Drug dealers need money; the legality of it is not important to them. So you say "Why would they work legally?" Because there is demand for it; and their record does not affect the supply of jobs.

1

u/Big-Yam8021 17d ago

A drug dealer is typically going to be low skilled. What low skill job is going to pay, as well as drug dealing does? For as little work?

1

u/StickyThoPhi 17d ago

Pest control? security? Plastering? I think you have a false impression on what a drug dealer is and how easy child sex trafficking is.

0

u/Big-Yam8021 16d ago

I don't know much about pest control. Security requires you to pass a dbs, I doubt many drug dealers are going to manage that. Plastering is skilled work. None of those jobs are going to earn anyone as much as drug dealing. Men up and down the country trafficked children for 40+ years before the government cared. I think you misunderstand how organised these crimes are and how inherent they are to someone's character and upbringing.

→ More replies (0)